Hugo Chavez is dead. Long live something other than Hugo Chavez's tyranny.

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So long, Hugo.

It's something of an understatement to say that I didn't much care for Hugo Chavez. Which isn't to say that I prefer the right-wing plutocratic opposition in Venezuela, which is no better, and possibly worse, than Chavez's left-wing authoritarianism. Suffice it to say that I would prefer a third way, something in between those two extremes.

And perhaps such a third way is possible now that Chavez, and the cult of personality that he brought to his authoritarian rule, is dead. Needless to say, this is a significant historical moment for Venezuela. Will it fully embrace constitutional democracy and individual liberty (if more along the lines of a social as opposed to liberal democracy)? Or will it collapse into strife, the populists and anti-populists fighting over which side deserves to oppress the Venezuelan people?

No, I didn't much care for Chavez, but I wish his country well.

**********

But it's Chavez we're talking about tonight, and I'm going to draw on a post I wrote a few years ago in response to the Chavez regime buying a stake in the country's leading opposition TV network:

Readers of this blog, or who are otherwise familiar with my writing, will know that I detest Hugo Chavez, the Tyrant of Caracas. Whether it's of the left or right, or any other kind, I abhor tyranny, and Chavez has shown over the years that he is very much the tyrant, however much he may spin his authoritarianism as revolutionary populism.

I have written extensively on Chavez's tyranny in Venezuela -- see, for example, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here -- describing his devious methods of aquiring ever more centralized power as "salami tactics," that is, slice-by-slice. Here's how I put it back in September '07:

[I]t is clear that Hugo Chavez is using salami tactics in his drive to establish so-called "Bolivarean" socialism -- that is, his own national-socialist autocratic rule -- in that country... Sometimes revolution can be achieved without sudden, dramatic bloodletting. There are a number of different prongs to Chavez's continuing revolution, a number of slices. They may be examined individually, but they are best understood as variations of the same, as components of a single overarching plan. The nationalization of industry, the seizure of private property, repression of dissent and opposition, control of the media, one-party rule, rule by decree, and, soon, the removal of constitutional impediments to the permanent and perpetual rule of the leader himself.

The pattern is clear. One slice, then another, and another, and another, with no one slice so grave as to compel anyone to act (although there are courageous opponents of Chavez's tyranny in Venezuela, and there was a coup, if not one worthy of much admiration, in 2002). 

Chavez has a long history of seeking to repress, salami-slice-style, any and all dissent and opposition to his rule, and specifically of seeking to control the outlets of dissent and opposition, particularly private industry and the media.

**********

Look, I'm not saying he was all bad. Obviously, he did a great deal for the poor and disenfranchised, giving them a voice, giving them hope, and actually making their lives better in many ways, and that's a lot more than can be said about most Latin American rulers, or most leaders anywhere.

But the rule of Hugo Chavez was always about Hugo Chavez, and that's where it went wrong. Instead of using his popularity and years of power to establish a more peaceful and prosperous Venezuela with a sustainable future, he used them to entrench his tyranny.

There will be a lot of looking back in the days, weeks, months, and even years to come. Chavez was that towering a figure. But it is also time to embrace the post-Chavez era that is now suddenly upon us. Hopefully the people of Venezuela will find a way to isolate the extremes and begin the long, hard road to a brighter future.

**********

By the way, I'll acknowledge that we don't all think alike on Chavez. See, for example Frank's more or less pro-Chavez post here. I suppose we'll just to agree to disagree, as they say.